[dtn] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: (with COMMENT)
Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org> Wed, 19 February 2020 20:13 UTC
Return-Path: <noreply@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: dtn@ietf.org
Delivered-To: dtn@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from ietfa.amsl.com (localhost [IPv6:::1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 3DEA612016E; Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:13:08 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
From: Roman Danyliw via Datatracker <noreply@ietf.org>
To: The IESG <iesg@ietf.org>
Cc: draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4@ietf.org, Edward Birrane <edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu>, dtn-chairs@ietf.org, edward.birrane@jhuapl.edu, dtn@ietf.org
X-Test-IDTracker: no
X-IETF-IDTracker: 6.118.0
Auto-Submitted: auto-generated
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: Roman Danyliw <rdd@cert.org>
Message-ID: <158214318824.17580.11260773545056134421.idtracker@ietfa.amsl.com>
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 12:13:08 -0800
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/dtn/nrM92ydatmKjUKp8-5-H4vX8N0Q>
Subject: [dtn] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: (with COMMENT)
X-BeenThere: dtn@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
List-Id: "Delay Tolerant Networking \(DTN\) discussion list at the IETF." <dtn.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/dtn/>
List-Post: <mailto:dtn@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/dtn>, <mailto:dtn-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2020 20:13:08 -0000
Roman Danyliw has entered the following ballot position for draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4-18: No Objection When responding, please keep the subject line intact and reply to all email addresses included in the To and CC lines. (Feel free to cut this introductory paragraph, however.) Please refer to https://www.ietf.org/iesg/statement/discuss-criteria.html for more information about IESG DISCUSS and COMMENT positions. The document, along with other ballot positions, can be found here: https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-ietf-dtn-tcpclv4/ ---------------------------------------------------------------------- COMMENT: ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for all of the changes made in response to the LC SECDIR review. Also, thank you for the LC SECDIR review, Chris (Wood)! A reference implementation (as noted in [github-dtn-bpbis-tcpcl]) that includes a Wireshark dissector is phenomenal (and a bar we should all strive towards when making a new protocol) ** Section 2.1. In the definition of the TCPCL Session, “there are two possible transfer streams; one in each direction, with one stream from each entity being the outbound stream and the other being the inbound stream.”, what does this imply about the underlying TCP connections? It would be worth being clearer on the relationship between a given stream and the TCP connection. ** Section 3.1. Is the list of provided convergence layer services enumerated in this section unique to the TCPCL, or would it be expected that all CLs would implement it? If the latter, then why isn’t it in the draft-ietf-dtn-bpbis? ** Section 3.2. Per “Each transfer is performed by an sequence of logical segments of data …”, what is the relationship between a “logical segment” and a “transfer segment” (defined in Section 2.1)? ** Section 3.3. Figure 4. What is the state transition from “Established Session Live” to “Established Session Ending”? Wouldn’t a session go from live to idle when the transfer is done (and then session ending)? Is the Session live to Session ending perhaps due to an interrupt or termination request while the transfer is underway? ** Section 4.2. Given that this new version of the convergence layer is a “green field” (judging from the list if implementations), why not require TLS v1.3 as the minimum (rather than TLS v1.2)? ** Section 8.6. (as suggested by Chris in his telechat SECDIR review) This section isn’t clear on the threat. It seems to cover material relevant to validation better aligned with Section 4.4.2. In particular, the reference to RFC5280 and reminder to check CRLs would be needed guidance to added to the Section 4.4.2 paragraph, “Any certificate received during TLS handshake SHALL be validated up to one or more trusted certificate authority (CA) certificates …” ** Editorial Section 2.1. Typo. s/entitys/entities/ Section 2.1. Typo. s/passivley/passively/ Section 2.1. Typo. s/trasnfer/transfer/ Section 2.1. Typo. s/Inititated/Initiated/g Section 3.1. Typo. s/defintion/definition/ Section 3.1. Typo. s/reciver/receiver/ Section 3.1. Typo. s/transmssion/transmission/ Section 3.2. Typo. s/negligable/negligible/ Section 3.2. Typo. s/by an sequence/by a sequence/ Section 3.3. Typo. s/reeiving/receiving/ Section 3.3. Typo. s/Recevied/Received/ Section 3.4. Typo. s/polcy/policy/ Section 4.2. Typo. s/contanct/contact/ Section 4.2. Typo. s/behavor/behavior/ Section 4.4.1. Typo. s/assoicated/associated/ Section 4.4.2. Typo. s/unauthticate/unauthenticated/ Section 4.4.3. s/Connnection/Connection/ Section 4.6. Typo. s/ mulitplicity/ multiplicity/ Please run a spell-check on the document. Additional typos were found past Section 4.6 but were not documented here
- [dtn] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-ietf-… Roman Danyliw via Datatracker
- Re: [dtn] Roman Danyliw's No Objection on draft-i… Brian Sipos